kuzadd Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washingt...nyt&emc=rss WASHINGTON — President Bush’s senior national security advisers are debating whether to expand the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan. more aggressive covert operations in a sovereign nation, by the US? say it isn't so? Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a number of President Bush’s top national security advisers met Friday at the White House to discuss the proposal, which is part of a broad reassessment of American strategy after the assassination 10 days ago of the Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. There was also talk of how to handle the period from now to the Feb. 18 elections, and the aftermath of those elections. It,s like pakistan has no say what goes on within it's borders? Several of the participants in the meeting argued that the threat to the government of President Pervez Musharraf was now so grave that both Mr. Musharraf and Pakistan’s new military leadership were likely to give the United States more latitude, officials said. Hmmm, so Mr Musharaf, sure didn't benefit from the assassination of Bhutto as even the US recognizes the threat to the Musharaf government is now so grave, that is give the US GREATER LATTITUDE WOW, who benefitted from the assassination? By increasing the destabilisation of the Pakistani gov? The new options for expanded covert operations include loosening restrictions on the C.I.A. to strike selected targets in Pakistan, in some cases using intelligence provided by Pakistani sources, officials said. In the wake of the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, many Pakistanis suspect that the United States is trying to dominate Pakistan as well, Mr. Rizvi said. Mr. Musharraf — who is already widely unpopular — would lose even more popular support. Those Pakistani people can see the obvious , good for them! this is another country that will be further destabilized, and what divided up by the colonialist powers? Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
M.Dancer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 It,s like pakistan has no say what goes on within it's borders? It doesn't. The Pkistani central gov't is unable to control the tribal areas...in effect, they have no say what goes on there and I would not be surprised if many are pleased that the US will help them. More often or not, if the government goes to those regions, they are attacked. This is good news. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 This is good news. Yes, this is excellent....you know...like Canada in Haiti. Go Colonials! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
JerrySeinfeld Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 We gotta keep the jihadi's away from nukes. That's obvious. Covert is the way to go. We should covert Ahmadinajad's ass too - and Syria's. If we covert all those f*ckers with "right of pursuit" then Iraq would settle way down. Quote
M.Dancer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 It,s like pakistan has no say what goes on within it's borders? kuzad being unintentionally correct. [Army 'flees second Pakistan fort' Pakistani troops have abandoned a fort in a remote tribal area, a day after another was overrun by pro-Taleban militants, officials and witnesses say. They say that paramilitary personnel at Sipla Toi military post in South Waziristan left their positions fearing an attack by the militants. But an army spokesman told the BBC he had received no such reports. On Wednesday, the army said hundreds of militants temporarily seized a fort in the Sararogha area of South Waziristan. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7193281.stm Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
weaponeer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 We gotta keep the jihadi's away from nukes. That's obvious.Covert is the way to go. We should covert Ahmadinajad's ass too - and Syria's. If we covert all those f*ckers with "right of pursuit" then Iraq would settle way down. Agreed!!! 1000% agreed!!! Quote
weaponeer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washingt...nyt&emc=rssmore aggressive covert operations in a sovereign nation, by the US? say it isn't so? It,s like pakistan has no say what goes on within it's borders? Hmmm, so Mr Musharaf, sure didn't benefit from the assassination of Bhutto as even the US recognizes the threat to the Musharaf government is now so grave, that is give the US GREATER LATTITUDE WOW, who benefitted from the assassination? By increasing the destabilisation of the Pakistani gov? Those Pakistani people can see the obvious , good for them! this is another country that will be further destabilized, and what divided up by the colonialist powers? What time are we meeting to start rebuilding the Berlin wall comrade?? The colonialist can only be stopped by the socialist freedom fighters. Fighting to free you from free thought, free speach, free will and anything else the commies don't like or do not want to hear. Long live chairman Mao, long live the revolution!!!! Quote
GostHacked Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 We gotta keep the jihadi's away from nukes. That's obvious.Covert is the way to go. We should covert Ahmadinajad's ass too - and Syria's. If we covert all those f*ckers with "right of pursuit" then Iraq would settle way down. Covert was tried in Iran almost 30 years ago... great results there too. Hostage crisis anyone? Quote
kuzadd Posted January 17, 2008 Author Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) Covert was tried in Iran almost 30 years ago... great results there too. Hostage crisis anyone? not to mention all the other covert ops in so many other countries, with so many other great results. So many south american countries come to mind............ on the other hand when destabilisation is the agenda, with division of the country as a possibility?? Edited January 17, 2008 by kuzadd Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
JerrySeinfeld Posted January 17, 2008 Report Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to give Joe Jihad a finger on the nuke button. America is a decent world policeman. It's kind of like a cop. Everyone hates 'em. There are always complaints about how they do their jobs - whether they were too tough, or not tough enough in the right situations etc. But in the end, if you're being victimized by a crime - thank god they're there and the world isn't ruled by the thugs running the UN. They've done a spectacular job policing the world thus far and I would continue to give them alot of latitude. Heaven knows if we went "multilateral" we'd all still be waiting for a "special UN envoy" to begin "humanitarian" missions to tsunami-stricken nations. Notice the term "humanitarian" is "western nation" centered - ie. we are all humanitarians - look at us - we're so proud of ourselves. That's because it's about US - not the victims. That's the problem with the UN. If it were about them, we'd all just act - but it's about us - and how we view ourselves. See? we're "humanitarians". It's more important to be on a "humanitarian" mission than it is to actually do anything remotely close to "humanitarianism". That's left-wing progressive thinking in a nutshell. I digress. US should do all it can to squash any jihadi getting power in Pakistan. Edited January 17, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld Quote
Alexandra Posted January 18, 2008 Report Posted January 18, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washingt...nyt&emc=rssmore aggressive covert operations in a sovereign nation, by the US? say it isn't so? It,s like pakistan has no say what goes on within it's borders? Monsieur Dion is even more insistent than the U.S. that more aqgressive operations be conducted against Pakistan: Mr. Dion hinted NATO could take action in Pakistan, which has a porous border with Afghanistan, if the Pakistani government doesn't move to track terrorists."We are going to have to discuss that very actively if they (the Pakistanis) are not able to deal with it on their own. We could consider that option with the NATO forces in order to help Pakistan help us pacify Afghanistan," said Mr. Dion in Quebec City, commenting after his two-day trip to Afghanistan last weekend. "As long as we don't solve the problem in Pakistan, I don't see how we can solve it in Afghanistan." http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=242249 Quote
GostHacked Posted January 19, 2008 Report Posted January 19, 2008 I would support OVERT operations in Pakistan. For I am one that supports invading that country and getting rid of Mushareff. Maybe OBL can actually serve some time, if he is not already dead. Also we must note that Pakistan has never allowed the US to operate in the areas close to Afghanistan where the Taliban and OBL are thought to be hiding out after they were disposed from Afghanistan. Don't you think it would have been in Pakistans better interest to allow the US take care of a huge problem? I guess not, that is why covert operations must be done. If Pakistan had allowed the US to go into those areas, we as NATO might not be so worried about this Taleban resurgence in Afghanistan. If Mushareff was the ally that he is touted to be, then why do the operations need to be covert? But first we should take care of Saudi Arabia. You know because most of the hijackers on 9/11 were.. Saudis. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted January 20, 2008 Report Posted January 20, 2008 hurray for U.S. interventionism! Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Topaz Posted January 22, 2008 Report Posted January 22, 2008 How many years has OBL been hiding in the mountains in Pakistan? What did Bush say about going into countries that habour terrorists? If the US REALLY believes he's there why haven't done someting about it? They already have threaten Pakistan right after 9/11 to bomb the hell out of them if they didn't help the US. The CIA are probably already there with people in Pakistan. To refresh ones memory of 9/11 timelines.... www.cooperativeresearch.org Quote
GostHacked Posted February 1, 2008 Report Posted February 1, 2008 and they are off ..... http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/31/alqaeda.death/index.html Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.